Capcom Transitioning to Recurring Revenue Model from One Time Sale Model

In a 2018 integrated report, Capcom has demostrated why it must transition to a Recurring Revenue Model from a One Time Sale Model

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Godmars29099d ago


(Sorry Ray. I am pissed beyond rational thought.)

((Did not see this coming from a company that's put paid DLC on disc. Color me that surprised.)

CyberSentinel98d ago

Capcom may be thinking more along the lines of something similar to EA's service.
Granted EA has more francises, but Capcom has some very popular ones as well.
Monster Hunter, Resident Evil, Street Fighter, Mega Man....etc.
They could also put some classic titles on this service.
The only thing left to consider is the monthly fee.

Sirk7x98d ago

It's never going to work if too many companies start their own streaming/content services. Right now, piracy online for TV shows and movies has exploded again after years of decline due to companies pulling from Netflix to start their own services. People want convenience. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, but they're only going to be fragmenting their own audiences doing it.

CyberSentinel97d ago


I agree with the fragmentation, but companies want to control their own content and keep their profits. All digital will be the future, (unfortunately) and I can even see the day when consoles will pay game devolopers for their "services". Similar to how cable companies pay stations for their content. Imagine if EA, Activision, Ubisoft,and Rockstar went all digital ONLY, and in order to play their games you had to subscribe to their exclusive channel service app. Unfortunately, thats the future. Yes, people want everything on a single service like Netflix, but companies like Disney, and Hulu and Amazon want to control their own content and profits. Piracy will always exist, thats a moot point.

Kribwalker99d ago

I could have told you that after the release of SF5. That game was built around a reoccurring service.

If it’s done right it can be ok, like incorporating free DLC with it (Halo 5, GT Sport) but it’s once they start giving competitive advantages behind the paywalls or made crazy long grinds in order to advance in a paid game, then i’ll have a serious issue with it. Otherwise let the people that wanna buy Mts buy them.I’ll continue to not do that.

gangsta_red99d ago (Edited 99d ago )

SFV is definitely the poster child of GaaS for this gen.

Piece mealing characters, costumes and other types of DLC locked behind a paywall really set the stage for how Capcom was going to be handling a lot of their games moving forward.

Still excited for Devil May Cry 5 but I will be staying away from unnecessary MTs.

trouble_bubble98d ago

Killer Instinct 2013 and Evolve are bigger poster children.

Killer Instinct started the GaaS train this gen with season passes for characters that worked out to $120 for something like 21 characters after 3 seasons compared to SFV that had 34 after 3 seasons and Injustice 2 that had 28 at launch .Killer instinct support wrapped with 29 characters.

SFV was a case of trying to charge full price for MP only with not enough content. Badically an early access state, unpolished and unfinished to hit the MP Capcom world tour dates. Story mode came free later. Arcade Edition is how it should’ve launched and hopefully they never do that again.

But Evolve! MP only Evolve cost money at retail and had $136 of DLC at launch not counting the season pass . Later went FTP on PC so too bad if you bought it, then the dedicated servers shut down last month.

I haven’t even talked about loot boxes yet

gangsta_red98d ago

I can definitely see KI being up there with SFV and the GaaS revolution.

I also believe MS didn't have a lot of confidence in KI and it was rushed out which is why they went with the insane F2P design for a fighting game. A very stupid decision.

Evolve, well, I don't have a lot of experience with that game but imo it wasn't just the MTs but just the terrible gameplay that killed it.

The point tho is that Capcom definitely set the stage early with how they we're going to handle a lot their games moving forward with SFV.

Teflon0298d ago

I don't get why it's on Capcom when it's actually a better model than capcom used in the past for Street Fighter Numbered games. Street Fighter 2 you had to buy whole new games. Skip 3 because that was a weird case. SFIV you had to buy a whole new game to get super content. Yes it was a $15 dollar upgrade or a whole new disc after, But SFV on year by year bases is giving more content than SFIV. They're realistically giving you alot more for free and your game will always be supported as long as the game is unlike vanilla SFIV. SFV imo is expensive, but if Sport games get away with a full price release every year, Capcom ain't at fault for a practice they've used since SFII but people complain about now

gangsta_red98d ago


I'd rather get another complete package rather than one new character ever so often down the line.

At least with the new editions you get a good amount of new characters, character balances, significant updates and modes, instead of waiting months and months for that one character to be revealed in whatever season you paid for.

I really don't like the way todays fighting games are. Teasing one character at a time instead of just releasing them all at once.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 98d ago
Apocalypse Shadow98d ago

As ganster said that I'll agree on, capcom released a bare bones game and didn't let the fans know about it. Characters that would have been there day one were put in dlc packages. If they would have released a complete game, even left it multi platform, they wouldn't be worried about money. No one likes incomplete games.

In GT's case, Sony told everyone up front that this version is starting over and is geared towards Esport and not the next gran turismo. I didn't agree with it. Didn't even buy it. As I like single player and the VR is bare. But I understood and respected that Sony didn't want franchise fatigue. As you can see from their 1st and 2nd party, developers were given the green light to either change their games(gow) or make something new(horizon, Spiderman, ghost of tushima, etc).Those will or are complete games.

Capcom just keeps chasing the wrong horse. Fans want mega man. Nope. Took years for them to respond. Fans want Onimusha and Dino crisis. Nope. They'll think about it. Took forever for monster hunter to come back to the system that launched its success where the fans were. RE being the only true hit because it worked in and out of VR.

Just make the best game you can make. Don't cut corners. And the money will flow. Just ask Sony.

Vrabstin98d ago

Cuz that well for Resident Evil...

AK9198d ago

God damn it did they learn nothing from Monster Hunter World?

Blank98d ago

See these publishers don't want to make a lot of money but rather ALL the money they don't really care about gamer good will.

Cobra95197d ago

Yes, that's right. They are public corporations; chasing money is their duty. If the service+MT model is more profitable, that's what they're going to chase. We, the gamers, are to blame for it being more profitable--not you or I personally perhaps, but the group as a whole.

alexgibson98d ago

Monster Hunter is an example of a continual revenue stream, so not sure what you're talking about.

This comment section is full of people making wild, uniformed assumptions based on a sentence long quote from a financial report.

Blastoise98d ago (Edited 98d ago )

Wasn't Monster Hunter World their most profitable and best selling title ever? Was that not enough?

Thatguy-31098d ago

They want more lol the bad thing about success is that it makes them even more money hungry

Show all comments (44)
The story is too old to be commented.